About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
thing interesting is secretary of state clinton kept her distance from the israeli-palestinian issue. i think you will see secretary kerry in the middle of this. clinton may have been thinking about the pobbletd of running for president someday, john kerry has been there, done that. and heard in that clip where prime minister netanyahu said the iranians would not move unless there was a credible threat of military action, and you heard the president come out very clearly saying containment is not my policy, they're not going to get a weapon no matter what we need to go do. and i think even though he's said that before, they needed to hear it right there and the iranians needed to hear it right there. >> while he was over there, there were some pretty horrific accusations coming out of syria, from both sides, that chemical weapons had been used. how credible was that? and what does that do to the whole international posture on syria? >> you know, the accusations were made very generally about chemical weapons being muse -- used but there was no mention of nerve gas or sarin or any of the
hillary clinton was doing. >> and barack obama. that was the administration's stated goal. the real answer is that the middle east, regardless of whether the united states achieves energy independence any time soon, the middle east is a geopolitical center that is not easy to pivot away from. i think that daunting list of challenges that you just ran over suggests why that is. i also think if you look at what senator-turned-secretary kerry's agenda is, you get the sense of this is still very much a political figure. he spent 29 years in the senate which prizes a kind of face-to-face diplomacy, if you will, the handshake, the look 'em in the eye. that was a mission that then senator kerry often undertook for barack obama when he was the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee. he went to afghanistan. he met with karzai. i think this is a somewhat familiar role for him. it's very different, by the way, than the way that hillary clinton used her time and credibility in the job. >> ifill: whether it's syria or what we just saw in afghanistan or whether it's worrying about the red li
on the people of israel, bill clinton, george w. bush, comes as president, cold in nature, was distancing himself to israel. the message the israelis got across the spectrum was he doesn't like us. he doesn't talk to us. and he doesn't care about us. >> rose: that's the perception in israel. >> that is correct. and of course it was reinforced by the fact that almost simultaneously to his election israel chose the right wing prime minister who replaced olmert who was wing to go a long distin to make a palestinian deal. >> rose: and before that barak. >> an before that ariel sharon who took a bold step in gaa -- gaza. so the israeli, the israeli political system responded to threats to the threat of iran, to the threat of hezbollah, israel, between 2006 and 2009, went to the right. both the public opinion and the government. so the drama of the collision between the president seeking to draw close to arab and muslims and israeli government veering to the right, intensified the tension that manifested itself at the time. and add to this the fact that between the president and the prime minis
. in 2011, then secretary of state hillary clinton was asked if a just-announce pred limb their agreement between hamas and fatah would prompt the u.s. to reconsider aid for the palestinian authority. secretary clinton said "we've made it very clear that we cannot support any government that consists of hamas unless and until hamas adopts principles that have been well known to everyone for a number of years." the principles include recognizing the state of israel. shipley tellhami says the u.s. should be prepared to drop that insistence when it comes to political parties if it hopes to broker a peace deal. >> i think we should insist that any palestinian government-- whether it's hamas or whoever it is-- meet certain conditions including being against terrorism, meeting its international obligations with parties we never insist they meet certain obligations and i think we're going to have to reassess. the environment has changed. if there's still time far two-state solution we're on the last leg. >> warner: why the last leg? >> israelis and arabs no longer believe in the two-state soluti
in camp david in the year 2000 with clinton as the witness, the israelis offered a division of jerusalem for the first time ever. that is simply factually wrong. the israelis have offered this, and arafat would not sign. the question is would anybody sign an agreement that accepts a jewish state, and for six decades, the answer has been no. >> 2008, different administrations in both israel and the united states, and the case and the reality is you cannot have israel existing as a single state without facing demographic distraction. that will change the entire character of israel. it will repeal the jewish values that have animated israel. that is to me, the real incentive. >> you cannot make peace if the other side wants to see nothing but your eradication. if that changes, there will be a peace. >> republicans engage in some self-criticism and rand paul offers an immigration plan. >> there is no one reason we lost. our message was weak. our ground game was insufficient. we were not inclusive. >> the chairman of the republican committee. why did mitt romney lose in 2012? the republican n
this sort of relationship. a lot of it rests on netanyahu and his first incarnation. even clinton, a guy who was prepared to cut him all kinds of breaks was annoyed in extreme us with some of netanyahu's frustrating behavior. but the reality is that barack obama has to clear away this old business, this dysfunctional relationship and he has to deal with two basic realities. he does not want to be the american president on whose watch the two-state solution expires and he certainly doesn't want to be the american president on whose watch iran acquire it is xas capacity or everybody a nuclear weapon. so israel is central to both of those stories. he's going early, there's no expectations and he's going early with a view i suspect to seeing whether or not he can't manage that relationship with netanyahu more effectively and create a new relationship with an israeli public who's deeply mistrustful of his detachment and lack of emotional connectedness to the idea of israel. so i think it's an important trip. i think it's a necessary trip. and i'm predicting that their relationship is going to imp
wrong, and it waw not only wrong during the bush administration, it was wrong during the clinton administration. if you look at theti intele the very end of president bill clt's administration, they were talking also about saddam building up his w.m.d.s. >> rose: what was the error ofwa intelligence? why did they believe that? >> it was a tbawrl off imagination-- it was a failure of imagination. i was writing about the intelligence at the time and i myself thought some of it might have been valid when i was writing about it. really what happened is saddam cooperated with a letter of the united nations demands. he let inspectors go here and there, but he never cooperated with the spirit of it. and he was trying to maintain ambiguity over what he actually had. because he was concerned, first and foremost biran, which doesan have w.m.d., and he was trying to repress his own population. he had used poison gas against the kurds. he didn't want internal factions to know he didn't have it. he maintained a big of ambiguity about it. and even hans blinx wrote he thought he must be having
recessiones, under reagan, and h.w. bush, and clinton. the difference is probably 1 million jobs relative to what is done in the past and now. we're missing one million government jobs relative to the historical norm -- >> rose: what's the difference? why is that true? >> it's true for two reasons. one is that states and locates almost inevitability have to cut back when time is tough. they lose tax revenues. they are mandated legally to run a balanced budget so at the time same time consumers and red soxes pull back the government is. in washington, starting in 2011, with the negotiations between the house republicans and the white houses, the house republicans have insisted on big cuts and have won big cuts and that's why we have austerity and will have more this year. >> rose: if the fed wanted to reduce unemployment from seven to whatever it is-- seven. could they do that? do they have the tools to do that? >> no. i don't think so. they're down to incremental policies. i think they know that. ben bernanke and janet yellen, and otheres, are constantly arguing-- correct, i think-- but t
it was enacted in the depression with roosevelt to 1999 when bill clinton and congress repealed it. >> well, i don't want to get into a dispute with you, bill. i think -- >> go right ahead, everybody else does. >> i think there was a long history of evasion. in other words ways were found in the '60s and '70s long before the repeal, ways were found by banks setting up investment banks, setting up new financial institutions to get around if not the letter then certainly the intent of that kind of regulation. when it was found possible politically first to weaken glass-steagall and then eventually to repeal it, well, that was even better. but basically the minute the regulation was set the regulated industries took it as a problem to be solved. then they hired the economists like me, the accountants, the lawyers and all the other specialists to figure out how to get around it. >> and armies of lobbyists, let's face it. >> armies of lobbyists to make sure that the laws get massaged and the rules get adjusted so that they can get around it. that's why we keep having financial scandal after financi
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)